RECORD: Darwin, C. R. et al 1842. Report of a Committee appointed "to consider the rules by which the nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis." London: John Murray for the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

"CD was one of 8 people appointed on February 11th 1842; 5 more names were added on June 29th. H.E. Strickland was appointed to act as reporter. This is the first appearance of the Strickland, or Stricklandian, Code or Rules. CD signed the report and it must be considered as one of his publications in serials, although its first appearance thus is in No. 1661b. The whole Committee, except William Ogilby, signed the Report on 27 June and the whole document is dated 29 June." R. B. Freeman

The copy scanned was kindly provided by The University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge.

Report of a Committee appointed "to consider of the rules by
which the Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and
permanent basis."

[Minute of Council, Feb. 11, 1842.

"Resolved,—That (with a view of securing early attention to the
following important subject) a Committee consisting of Mr. C. Darwin,
Prof. Henslow, Rev. L. Jenyns, Mr. W. Ogilby, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr.
Richardson, Mr. H. E. Strickland (reporter), Mr. J. O. Westwood, be
appointed, to consider of the rules by which the Nomenclature of
Zoology
may be established on a uniform and permanent basis; the report to be
presented to the Zoological Section, and submitted to its Committee, at
the Manchester Meeting.

Minute of the Committee of Section D, June 29,
1842.

"Resolved,—That the Committee of the Section of Zoology and Botany
have too little time during the Meeting of the Association to discuss a
Report on Nomenclature, and therefore remit to the special Committee
appointed to draw up the Report, to present it on their own
responsibility."]

THE Committee appointed by the Council of the British Association to
carry out the above object, beg leave to report, that at the meetings
which they held in London, the following gentlemen were added to the
Committee and assisted in its labours:—Messrs. W. J. Broderip, Prof.
Owen, W. E. Shuckard, G. R. Waterhouse, and W. Yarrell. An outline of
the proposed code of rules having been drawn up and printed, copies of
it were sent to many eminent zoologists at home and abroad, who were
requested to favour the Committee with their observations and comments.
Many valuable suggestions were obtained from this source, by the aid of
which the Committee were enabled to introduce several important
modifications into the original plan. A few copies of the plan as
amended were then printed for the use of the Committee, and the total
cost of printing these two editions amounts to £4 10s.

As the probable success of this measure must greatly depend on its
obtaining a rapid and extensive circulation among foreign as well as
British zoologists, the Committee beg to recommend that a small sum
(say £5 10s.) be appropriated for printing and
distributing
extra copies of this report in the form which it may finally assume in
our Transactions.

The plan as amended has been further considered by the Committee
during the present meeting at Manchester, and the Committee having thus
given their best endeavours to maturing the plan, beg now to submit it
to the approval of the British Association under the title of a

SERIES OF PROPOSITIONS FOR RENDERING THE NOMENCLATURE
OF ZOOLOGY UNIFORM AND PERMANENT.

PREFACE.

All persons who are conversant with the present state of Zoology
must be aware of the great detriment which the science sustains from
the vagueness and uncertainty of its nomenclature. We do not here refer
to those diver-

sities of language which arise from the various methods of
classification adopted by different authors, and which are unavoidable
in the present state of our knowledge. So long as naturalists differ in
the views which they are disposed to take of the natural affinities of
animals there will always be diversities of classification, and the
only way to arrive at the true system of nature is to allow perfect
liberty to systematists in this respect. But the evil complained of is
of a different character. It consists in this, that when naturalists are
agreed as to the characters and limits of an individual group or
species, they still disagree in the appellations by which they
distinguish it. A genus is often designated by three or four, and a
species by twice that number of precisely equivalent synonyms; and in
the absence of any rule on the subject, the naturalist is wholly at a
loss what nomenclature to adopt. The consequence is, that the so-called
commonwealth of science is becoming daily divided into independent
states, kept asunder by diversities of language as well as by
geographical limits. If an English zoologist, for example, visits the
museums and converses with the professors of France, he finds that
their scientific language is almost as foreign to him as
their vernacular. Almost every specimen which he examines is
labeled by a title which is unknown to him, and he feels that nothing
short of a continued residence in that country can make him conversant
with her science. If he proceeds thence to Germany or Russia, he is
again at a loss: bewildered everywhere amidst the confusion of
nomenclature, he returns in despair to his own country and to the
museums and books to which he is accustomed.

If these diversities of scientific language were as deeply rooted as
the vernacular tongue of each country, it would of course be hopeless
to think of remedying them; but happily this is not the case. The
language of science is in the mouths of comparatively few, and these
few, though scattered over distant lands, are in habits of frequent and
friendly intercourse with each other. All that is wanted then is, that
some plain and simple regulations, founded on justice and sound reason,
should be drawn up by a competent body of persons, and then be
extensively distributed throughout the zoological world.

The undivided attention of chemists, of astronomers, of anatomists,
of mineralogists, has been of late years devoted to fixing their
respective languages on a sound basis. Why, then, do zoologists
hesitate in performing the same duty? at a time, too, when all
acknowledge the evils of the present anarchical state of their science.

It is needless to inquire far into the causes of the present
confusion of zoological nomenclature. It is in great measure the result
of the same branch of science having been followed in distant countries
by persons who were either unavoidably ignorant of each other's
labours, or who neglected to inform themselves sufficiently of the
state of the science in other regions. And when we remark the great
obstacles which now exist to the circulation of books beyond the
conventional limits of the states in which they happen to be published,
it must be admitted that this ignorance of the writings of others,
however unfortunate, is yet in great measure pardonable. But there is
another source for this evil, which is far less excusable,—the practice
of gratifying individual vanity by attempting on the most frivolous
pretexts to cancel the terms established by original discoverers, and
to substitute a new and unauthorized nomenclature in their place. One
author lays down as a rule, that no specific names should be derived
from geographical sources, and unhesitatingly proceeds to insert words
of his own in all such cases; another declares war against names of
exotic origin, foreign to the Greek and Latin; a third excommunicates
all words which exceed a certain number of syllables; a fourth cancels
all names which are complimentary of individuals, and

so on, till universality and permanence, the two great essentials
of scientific language, are utterly destroyed.

It is surely, then, an object well worthy the attention of the
Zoological Section of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, to devise some means which may lessen the extent of this evil,
if not wholly put an end to it. The best method of making the attempt
seems to be, to entrust to a carefully selected committee the
preparation of a series of rules, the adoption of which must be left to
the sound sense of naturalists in general. By emanating from the
British Association, it is hoped that the proposed rules will be
invested with an authority which no individual zoologist, however
eminent, could confer on them. The world of science is no longer a
monarchy, obedient to the ordinances, however just, of an Aristotle or
a Linnæus. She has now assumed the form of a republic, and although
this revolution may have increased the vigour and zeal of her
followers, yet it has destroyed much of her former order and regularity
of government. The latter can only be restored by framing such laws as
shall be based in reason and sanctioned by the approval of men of
science; and it is to the preparation of these laws that the Zoological
Section of the Association have been invited to give their aid.

In venturing to propose these rules for the guidance of all classes
of zoologists in all countries, we disclaim any intention of dictating
to men of science the course which they may see fit to pursue. It must
of course be always at the option of authors to adhere to or depart
from these principles, but we offer them to the candid consideration of
zoologists, in the hope that they may lead to sufficient uniformity of
method in future to rescue the science from becoming a mere chaos of
words.

We now proceed to develope the details of our plan; and in order to
make the reasons by which we are guided apparent to naturalists at
large, it will be requisite to append to each proposition a short
explanation of the circumstances which call for it.

Among the numerous rules for nomenclature which have been proposed
by naturalists, there are many which, though excellent in themselves,
it is not now desirable to enforce*. The cases in which those rules
have been overlooked or departed from, are so numerous and of such long
standing, that to carry these regulations into effect would undermine
the edifice of zoological nomenclature. But while we do not adopt these
propositions as authoritative laws, they may still be consulted with
advantage in making such additions to the language of zoology as are
required by the progress of the science. By adhering to sound
principles of
philology, we may avoid errors in future, even when it is too late to
remedy the past, and the language of science will thus eventually
assume an aspect of more classic purity than it now presents.

Our subject hence divides itself into two parts; the first
consisting of Rules for the rectification of the present
zoological
nomenclature, and the second of Recommendations for the
improvement of
zoological nomenclature in future.

PART I.

RULES FOR RECTIFYING THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE.

[Limitation of the Plan to Systematic Nomenclature.]

In proposing a measure for the establishment of a permanent and
universal zoological nomenclature, it must be premised that we refer
solely to the Latin

* See especially the admirable code proposed in
the 'Philosophia Botanica' of Linnæus. If zoologists had paid more
attention to the principles of that code, the present attempt at reform
would perhaps have been unnecessary.

or systematic language of zoology. We have nothing to do with
vernacular appellations. One great cause of the neglect and corruption
which prevails in the scientific nomenclature of zoology, has been the
frequent and often exclusive use of vernacular names in lieu of the
Latin binomial designations, which form the only legitimate language of
systematic zoology. Let us then endeavour to render perfect the Latin
or Linnæan method of nomenclature, which, being far removed from the
scope of national vanities and modern antipathies, holds out the only
hope of introducing into zoology that grand desideratum, an universal
language.

[Law of Priority the only effectual and just one.]

It being admitted on all hands that words are only the conventional
signs of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain its end
effectually by being permanently established and generally recognized.
This consideration ought, it would seem, to have checked those who are
continually attempting to subvert the established language of zoology
by substituting terms of their own coinage. But, forgetting the true
nature of language, they persist in confounding the name of a
species or group with its definition; and because the former
often falls short of the fullness of expression found in the latter,
they cancel it without hesitation, and introduce some new term which
appears to them more characteristic, but which is utterly unknown to
the science, and is therefore devoid of all authority*. If these
persons were to object to such names of men as Long, Little,
Armstrong, Golightly, &c., in cases where they
fail to apply to the individuals who bear them, or should complain of
the names Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey,
that they were devoid of meaning, and should hence propose to change
them for more characteristic apellations, they would not act more
unphilosophically or inconsiderately than they do in the case before
us; for, in truth, it matters not in the least by what conventional
sound we agree to designate an individual object, provided the sign to
be employed be stamped with such an authority as will suffice to make
it pass current. Now in zoology no one person can subsequently claim an
authority equal to that possessed by the person who is the first to
define a new genus or describe a new species; and hence it is that the
name originally given, even though it may be inferior in point of
elegance or expressiveness to those subsequently proposed, ought as a
general principle to be permanently retained. To this consideration we
ought to add the injustice of erasing the name originally selected by
the person to whose labours we owe our first knowledge of the object;
and we should reflect how much the permission of such a practice opens
a door to obscure pretenders for dragging themselves into notice at the
expense of original observers. Neither can an author be permitted to
alter a name which he himself has once published, except in accordance
with fixed and equitable laws. It is well observed by Decandolle,
"L'auteur même qui a le premier établi un nom n'a pas plus qu'un autre
le droit de le changer pour simple cause d'impropriété. La priorité en
effet est un terme fixe, positif, qui n'admet rien, ni d'arbitraire, ni
de partial."

For these reasons, we have no hesitation in adopting as our
fundamental maxim, the "law of priority," viz.

§ 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group or the
describer of a species should be permanently retained, to the exclusion
of all subsequent synonyms (with the exceptions about to be noticed).

Having laid down this principle, we must next inquire into the
limitations which are found necessary in carrying it into practice.

[Not to extend to authors older than Linnæus.]

As our subject matter is strictly confined to the binomial
system
of
nomenclature, or that which indicates species by means of two
Latin
words, the one generic, the other specific, and as this invaluable
method originated solely with Linnæus, it is clear that, as far as
species are concerned, we ought not to attempt to carry back the
principle of priority beyond the date of the 12th edition of the
'Systema Naturæ.' Previous to that period, naturalists were wont to
indicate species not by a name comprised in one word, but by
a
definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme verbosity of
which
method was productive of great inconvenience. It is true that one word
sometimes sufficed for the definition of a species, but these rare
cases were only binomial by accident and not by principle, and ought
not therefore in any instance to supersede the binomial designations
imposed by Linnæus.

The same reasons apply also to generic names.
Linnæus was the first to attach a definite value to genera, and to give
them a systematic character by means of exact definitions; and
therefore although the names used by previous authors may
often be
applied with propriety to modern genera, yet in such cases they acquire
a new meaning, and should be quoted on the authority of the first
person who used them in this secondary sense. It is true, that several
of the old authors made occasional approaches to the Linnæan exactness
of generic definition, but still these were but partial attempts; and
it is certain that if in our rectification of the binomial nomenclature
we once trace back our authorities into the obscurity which preceded
the epoch of its foundation, we shall find no resting-place or fixed
boundary for our researches. The nomenclature of Ray is chiefly derived
from that of Gesner and Aldrovandus, and from these authors we might
proceed backward to Ælian, Pliny, and Aristotle, till our zoological
studies would be frittered away amid the refinements of classical
learning*.

We therefore recommend the adoption of the following proposition:—

§ 2. The binomial nomenclature having originated with Linnæus, the
law of priority, in respect of that nomenclature, is not to extend to
the writings of antecedent authors.

[It should be here explained, that Brisson, who was a contemporary
of Linnæus and acquainted with the 'Systema Naturæ,' defined and
published certain genera of birds which are additional to
those in the 12th edition of Linnæus's work, and which are therefore of
perfectly good authority. But Brisson still adhered to the old mode of
designating species by a sentence instead of a word, and therefore
while we retain his defined genera, we do not extend the same
indulgence to the titles of his species, even when the latter are
accidentally binomial in form. For instance, the Perdix rubra
of Brisson is the Tetrao rufus of Linnæus; therefore as we in
this case retain the generic name of Brisson and the specific name of
Linnæus, the correct title of the species would be Perdix rufa.]

[Generic names not to be cancelled in subsequent
subdivisions.]

As the number of known species which form the groundwork of
zoological science is always increasing, and our knowledge of their
structure becomes

more complete, fresh generalizations continually occur to the
naturalist, and the number of genera and other groups requiring
appellations is ever becoming more extensive. It thus becomes necessary
to subdivide the contents of old groups and to make their definitions
continually more restricted. In carrying out this process, it is an act
of justice to the original author, that his generic name should never
be lost sight of; and it is no less essential to the welfare of the
science, that all which is sound in its nomenclature should remain
unaltered amid the additions which are continually being made to it. On
this ground we recommend the adoption of the following rule:—

§ 3. A generic name when once established should never be cancelled
in any subsequent subdivision of the group, but retained in a
restricted sense for one of the constituent portions.

[Generic names to be retained for the typical
portion of the old genus.]

When a genus is subdivided into other genera, the original name
should be retained for that portion of it which exhibits in the
greatest degree its essential characters as at first defined. Authors
frequently indicate this by selecting some one species as a fixed point
of reference, which they term the "type of the genus." When they omit
doing so, it may still in many cases be correctly inferred that the first
species mentioned on their list, if found accurately to
agree
with their definition, was regarded by them as the type. A specific
name or its synonyms will also often serve to point out the particular
species which by implication must be regarded as the original type of a
genus. In such cases we are justified in restoring the name of the old
genus to its typical signification, even when later authors have done
otherwise. We submit therefore that

§ 4. The generic name should always be retained for that portion of
the original genus which was considered typical by the author.

Example.—The genus Picumnus was established by
Temminck, and included two groups, one with four toes, the other with
three, the former of which was regarded by the author as
typical. Swainson, however, in raising these groups at a later period
to the rank of genera, gave a new name, Asthenurus, to the former
group, and retained Picumnus for the latter. In
this case we have no choice but to restore the name Picumnus,
Tem., to
its correct sense, cancelling the name Asthenurus, Sw., and
imposing a new name on the 3-toed group which Swainson had called Picumnus.

[When no type is indicated, then the original
name is to be kept for that subsequent subdivision which first
received it.]

Our next proposition seems to require no explanation:—

§ 5. When the evidence as to the original type of a genus is not
perfectly clear and indisputable, then the person who first subdivides
the genus may affix the original name to any portion of it at his
discretion, and no later author has a right to transfer that name to
any other part of the original genus.

[A later name of the same extent as an earlier to
be wholly cancelled.]

When an author infringes the law of priority by giving a new name to
a genus which has been properly defined and named already, the only
penalty

which can be attached to this act of negligence or injustice, is to
expel the name so introduced from the pale of the science. It is not
right then in such cases to restrict the meaning of the later name so
that it may stand side by side with the earlier one, as has sometimes
been done. For instance, the genus Monaulus, Vieill. 1816, is
a precise equivalent to Lophophorus, Tem. 1813, both authors
having adopted the same species as their type, and therefore when the
latter genus came in the course of time to be divided into two, it was
incorrect to give the condemned name Monaulus to one of the
portions. To state this succinctly,

§ 6. When two authors define and name the same genus, both
making it exactly of the same extent, the later name should be
cancelled in toto, and not retained in a modified sense*.

This rule admits of the following exception:—

§ 7. Provided however, that if these authors select their respective
types from different sections of the genus, and these sections be
afterwards raised into genera, then both these names may be retained in
a restricted sense for the new genera respectively.

Example.—The names Œdemia and Melanetta
were originally co-extensive synonyms, but their respective types were
taken from different sections which are now raised into genera,
distinguished by the above titles.

[No special rule is required for the cases in which the later of two
generic names is so defined as to be less extensive in
signification than the earlier, for if the later includes the type of
the earlier genus, it would be cancelled by the operation of § 4; and
if it does not include that type, it is in fact a distinct genus.]

But when the later name is more extensive than the
earlier, the
following rule comes into operation:—

[A later name equivalent to several earlier ones
is to be cancelled.]

The same principle which is involved in § 6, will apply to § 8.

§ 8. If the later name be so defined as to be equal in extent to two
or more previously published genera, it must be cancelled in toto.

Example.—Psarocolius, Wagl. 1827, is equivalent to
five or six genera previously published under other names, therefore Psarocolius
should be cancelled.

If these previously published genera be separately adopted
(as is
the case with the equivalents of Psarocolius), their original
names will of course prevail; but if we follow the later author in
combining them into one, the following rule is necessary:—

[A genus compounded of two or more previously
proposed genera whose characters are now deemed insufficient, should
retain the name of one of them.]

It sometimes happens that the progress of science requires two or
more genera, founded on insufficient or erroneous characters, to be
combined together into one. In such cases the law of priority forbids
us to cancel all

* These discarded names may however be tolerated,
if they have been afterwards proposed in a totally new sense, though we
trust that in future no one will knowingly apply an old
name, whether now adopted or not, to a new genus. (See proposition q,
infra.)

the original names and impose a new one on this compound
genus. We
must therefore select some one species as a type or example, and give
the generic name which it formerly bore to the whole group now formed.
If these original generic names differ in date, the oldest one should
be the one adopted.

§ 9. In compounding a genus out of several smaller ones, the
earliest of them, if otherwise unobjectionable, should be selected, and
its former generic name be extended over the new genus so compounded.

Example.—The genera Accentor and Prunella
of Vieillot not being considered sufficiently distinct in character, are
now united under the general name of Accentor, that being the
earliest.
So also Cerithium and Potamides, which were long
considered distinct, are now united, and the latter name merges into
the former.

We now proceed to point out those few cases which form exceptions to
the law of priority, and in which it becomes both justifiable and
necessary to alter the names originally imposed by authors.

[A name should be changed when previously applied
to another group which still retains it.]

It being essential to the binomial method to indicate objects in
natural history by means of two words only, without the aid
of any
further designation, it follows that a generic name should only have
one meaning, in other words, that two genera should never bear the same
name. For a similar reason, no two species in the same genus should
bear the same name. When these cases occur, the later of the two
duplicate names should be cancelled, and a new term, or the earliest
synonym, if there be any, substituted. When it is necessary to form new
words for this purpose, it is desirable to make them bear some analogy
to those which they are destined to supersede, as where the genus of
birds, Plectorhynchus, being preoccupied in Ichthyology, is
changed to Plectorhamphus. It is, we conceive, the bounden
duty of an author when naming a new genus, to ascertain by careful
search that the name which he proposes to employ has not been
previously adopted in other departments of natural history*. By
neglecting this precaution he is liable to have the name altered and
his authority superseded by the first subsequent author who may detect
the oversight, and for this result, however unfortunate, we fear there
is no remedy, though such cases would be less frequent if the detectors
of these errors would, as an act of courtesy, point them out to the
author himself, if living, and leave it to him to correct his own
inadvertencies. This occasional hardship appears to us to be a less
evil than to permit the practice of giving the same generic name ad
libitum to a multiplicity of genera. We submit therefore, that

§ 10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed for
some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species in the
same genus, when still retained for such genus or species.

[A name whose meaning is glaringly false may be
changed.]

Our next proposition has no other claim for adoption than that of
being a concession to human infirmity. If such proper names of places
as Covent Garden, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Newcastle, Bridgewater,
&c., no longer suggest the ideas of gardens, fields, castles, or
bridges, but refer the mind with the

* This laborious and difficult research will in
future be greatly facilitated by the very useful work of M. Agassiz,
entitled "Nomenclator Zoologicus."

quickness of thought to the particular localities which they
respectively designate, there seems no reason why the proper names used
in natural history should not equally perform the office of correct
indication even when their etymological meaning may be wholly
inapplicable to the object which they typify. But we must remember that
the language of science has but a limited currency, and hence the words
which compose it do not circulate with the same freedom and rapidity as
those which belong to every-day life. The attention is consequently
liable in scientific studies to be diverted from the contemplation of
the thing signified to the etymological meaning of the sign, and hence
it is necessary to provide that the latter shall not be such as to
propagate actual error. Instances of this kind are indeed very rare,
and in some cases, such as that of Monodon, Caprimulgus,
Paradisea apoda and Monoculus, they have acquired
sufficient currency no longer to cause error, and are therefore
retained without change. But when we find a Batracian reptile named in
violation of its true affinities, Mastodonsaurus, a Mexican
species termed (through erroneous information of its habitat) Picus
cafer, or an olive-coloured one Muscicapa atra, or when
a name is derived from an accidental monstrosity, as in Picus
semirostris of Linnæus, and Helix disjuncta of Turton,
we feel justified in cancelling these names, and adopting that synonym
which stands next in point of date. At the same time we think it right
to remark that this privilege is very liable to abuse, and ought
therefore to be applied only to extreme cases and with great caution.
With these limitations we may concede that

§ 11. A name may be changed when it implies a false proposition
which is likely to propagate important errors.

[Names not clearly defined may be changed.]

Unless a species or group is intelligibly defined when the name is
given, it cannot be recognized by others, and the signification of the
name is consequently lost. Two things are necessary before a zoological
term can acquire any authority, viz. definition and publication.
Definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential
characters, and in all cases we conceive this to be indispensable,
although some authors maintain that a mere enumeration of the component
species, or even of a single type, is sufficient to authenticate a
genus. To constitute publication, nothing short of the
insertion of the above particulars in a printed book can be
held sufficient. Many birds, for instance, in the Paris and other
continental museums, shells in the British Museum (in Dr. Leach's
time), and fossils in the Scarborough and other public collections, have
received MS. names which will be of no authority until they are
published*. Nor can any unpublished descriptions, however exact (such
as those of Forster, which are still shut up in a MS. at Berlin), claim
any right of priority till published, and then only from the date of
their publication. The same rule applies to cases where groups or
species are published, but not defined, as in some museum catalogues,
and in Lesson's 'Traité d'Ornithologie,' where many species are
enumerated by name, without any description or reference by which they
can be identified. Therefore

§ 12. A name which has never been clearly defined in some published
work should be changed for the earliest name by which the object shall
have been so defined.

* These MS. names are in all cases liable to
create confusion, and it is therefore much to be desired that the
practice of using them should be avoided in future.

The necessity for the following rule will be best illustrated by an
example. The Corvus pyrrhocorax, Linn., was afterwards
advanced to a genus under the name of Pyrrhocorax.
Temminck adopts this generic name, and also retains the old specific
one, so
that he terms the species Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. The
inelegance of this method is so great as to demand a change of the
specific name, and the species now stands as Pyrrhocorax alpinus,
Vieill. We propose therefore that

§ 13. A new specific name must be given to a species when its old
name has been adopted for a genus which includes that species.

N.B. It will be seen, however, below, that we strongly object to the
further continuance of this practice of elevating specific names into
generic.

[Latin orthography to be adhered to.]

On the subject of orthography it is necessary to lay down one
proposition,—

§ 14. In writing zoological names the rules of Latin orthography
must be adhered to.

In Latinizing Greek words there are certain rules of orthography
known to classical scholars which must never be departed from. For
instance, the names which modern authors have written Aipunemia,
Zenophasia, poiocephala, must, according to the laws
of etymology, be spelt Æpycnemia, Xenophasia
and pœocephala.
In Latinizing modern words the rules of classic usage do not apply, and
all that we can do is to give to such terms as classical an appearance
as we can, consistently with the preservation of their etymology. In
the case of European words whose orthography is fixed, it is best to
retain the original form, even though it may include letters and
combinations unknown in Latin. Such words, for instance, as Woodwardi,
Knighti, Bullocki, Eschscholtzi, would be
quite unintelligible if they were Latinized into Vudvardi, Cnichti,
Bullocci, Essolzi, &c. But words of barbarous
origin, having no fixed orthography, are more pliable, and hence, when
adopted into the Latin, they should be rendered as classical in
appearance as is consistent with the preservation of their original
sound. Thus the words Tockus, awsuree, argoondah,
kundoo,
&c. should, when Latinized, have been written Toccus, ausure,
argunda, cundu, &c. Such words ought, in all
practicable cases, to have a Latin termination given them, especially
if they are used generically.

In Latinizing proper names, the simplest rule appears to be to use
the termination -us, genitive -i, when the name ends
with a consonant, as in the above examples; and -ius, gen. -ii,
when it ends with a vowel, as Latreille, Latreillii,
&c.

In converting Greek words into Latin the following rules must be
attended to:—

When a name has been erroneously written and its orthography has
been afterwards amended, we conceive that the authority of the original
author should still be retained for the name, and not that of the
person who makes the correction.

PART II.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE NOMENCLATURE IN
FUTURE.

The above propositions are all which in the present state of the
science it appears practicable to invest with the character of laws. We
have endeavoured to make them as few and simple as possible, in the
hope that they may be the more easily comprehended and adopted by
naturalists in general. We are aware that a large number of other
regulations, some of which are hereafter enumerated, have been proposed
and acted upon by various authors who have undertaken the difficult
task of legislating on this subject; but as the enforcement of such
rules would in many cases undermine the invaluable principle of
priority, we do not feel justified in adopting them. At the same time
we fully admit that the rules in question are, for the most part,
founded on just criticism, and therefore, though we do not allow them
to operate retrospectively, we are willing to retain them for future
guidance. Although it is of the first importance that the principle of
priority should be held paramount to all others, yet we are not blind
to the desirableness of rendering our scientific language palatable to
the scholar and the man of taste. Many zoological terms, which are now
marked with the stamp of perpetual currency, are yet so far defective
in construction, that our inability to remove them without infringing
the law of priority may be a subject of regret. With these terms we
cannot interfere, if we adhere to the principles above laid down; nor
is there even any remedy, if authors insist on infringing the rules of
good taste by introducing into the science words of the same inelegant
or unclassical character in future. But that which cannot be enforced
by law may, in some measure, be effected by persuasion; and with this
view we submit the following propositions to naturalists, under the
title of Recommendations for the improvement of Zoological
Nomenclature in future.

[The best names are Latin or Greek characteristic
words.]

The classical languages being selected for zoology, and words being
more easily remembered in proportion as they are expressive, it is
self-evident that

§ A. The best zoological names are those which are derived
from the Latin or Greek, and express some distinguishing characteristic
of the object to which they are applied.

[Classes of objectionable names.]

It follows from hence that the following classes of words are more
or less objectionable in point of taste, though, in the case of genera,
it is often necessary to use them, from the impossibility of finding
characteristic words which have not before been employed for other
genera. We will commence with those which appear the least open to
objection, such as

a. Geographical names.—These words being for the most part
adjectives can rarely be used for genera. As designations of
species
they have been so strongly objected to, that some authors (Wagler, for
instance) have gone the length of substituting fresh names wherever
they occur; others (e. g. Swain-

son) will only tolerate them where they apply exclusively,
as Lepus
hibernicus, Troglodytes europæus,
&c. We are by no
means disposed to go to this length. It is not the less true that the Hirundo
javanica is a Javanese bird, even though it may occur in other
countries also, and though other species of Hirundo may occur
in Java.
The utmost that can be urged against such words is, that they do not
tell the whole truth. However, as so many authors object to
this class
of names, it is better to avoid giving them, except where there is
reason to believe that the species is chiefly confined to the country
whose name it bears.

b. Barbarous names.—Some authors protest strongly against
the introduction of exotic words into our Latin nomenclature, others
defend the practice with equal warmth. We may remark, first, that the
practice is not contrary to classical usage, for the Greeks and Romans
did occasionally, though with reluctance, introduce barbarous words in
a modified form into their respective languages. Secondly, the
preservation of the trivial names which animals bear in their native
countries is often of great use to the traveller in aiding him to
discover and identify species. We do not therefore consider, if such
words have a Latin termination given to them, that the occasional and
judicious use of them as scientific terms can be justly objected to.

c. Technical names.—All words expressive of trades and
professions have been by some writers excluded from zoology, but
without sufficient reason. Words of this class, when carefully
chosen,
often express the peculiar characters and habits of animals in a
metaphorical manner, which is highly elegant. We may cite the generic
names Arvicola, Lanius, Pastor, Tyrannus,
Regulus, Mimus, Ploceus,
&c., as favourable examples of this class of names.

d. Mythological or historical names.—When these have no
perceptible reference or allusion to the characters of the object on
which they are conferred, they may be properly regarded as unmeaning
and in bad taste. Thus the generic names Lesbia, Leilus,
Remus,
Corydon, Pasiphae, have been applied to a Humming
bird, a
Butterfly, a Beetle, a Parrot, and a Crab respectively, without any
perceptible association of ideas. But mythological names may sometimes
be used as generic with the same propriety as technical ones, in cases
where a direct allusion can be traced between the narrated actions of a
personage and the observed habits or structure of an animal. Thus when
the name Progne is given to a Swallow, Clotho to a
Spider, Hydra to a Polyp, Athene to an Owl, Nestor
to a grey-headed Parrot, &c., a pleasing and beneficial connexion
is established between classical literature and physical science.

e. Comparative names.—The objections which have been
raised to words of this class are not without foundation. The names, no
less than the definitions of objects, should, where practicable, be
drawn from positive and self-evident characters, and not from a
comparison with other objects, which may be less known to the reader
than the one before him. Specific names expressive of comparative size
are also to be avoided, as they may be rendered inaccurate by the
after-discovery of additional species. The names Picoides,
Emberizoides, Pseudoluscinia, rubeculoides,
maximus, minor, minimus,
&c. are examples of this objectionable practice.

f. Generic names compounded from other genera.—These
are
in some degree open to the same imputation as comparative words; but as
they often serve to express the position of a genus as intermediate to,
or allied with, two other genera, they may occasionally be used with
advantage. Care must be taken not to adopt such compound words as are
of too great length, and not to corrupt them in trying to render them
shorter. The names Gallopavo, Tetraogallus, Gypaetos,
are
examples of the appropriate use of compound words.

g. Specific names derived from persons.—So long as these
complimentary designations are used with moderation, and are restricted
to persons of eminence as scientific zoologists, they may be employed
with propriety in cases where expressive or characteristic words are
not to be found. But we fully concur with those who censure the
practice of naming species after persons of no scientific reputation,
as curiosity dealers (e. g. Caniveti, Boissoneauti),
Peruvian
priestesses (Cora, Amazilia), or Hottentots (Klassi).

h. Generic names derived from persons.—Words of this class
have been very extensively used in botany, and therefore it would have
been well to have excluded them wholly from zoology, for the sake of
obtaining a memoria technica by which the name of a genus
would at once tell us to which of the kingdoms of nature it belonged.
Some few personal generic names have however crept into zoology, as Cuvieria,
Mulleria, Rossia, Lessonia, &c., but
they are very rare in
comparison with those of botany, and it is perhaps desirable not to add
to their number.

i. Names of harsh and inelegant pronunciation.—These words
are grating to the ear, either from inelegance of form, as Huhua,
Yuhina, Craxirex, Eschscholtzi, or from
too great length, as chirostrongylostinus,
Opetiorhynchus, brachypodioides, Thecodontosaurus,
not to mention
the Enaliolimnosaurus crocodilocephaloides of a German
naturalist. It is needless to enlarge on the advantage of consulting
euphony in the construction of our language. As a general rule it may
be recommended to avoid introducing words of more than five syllables.

k. Ancient names of animals applied in a wrong sense.—It
has been customary, in numerous cases, to apply the names of animals
found in classic authors at random to exotic genera or species which
were wholly unknown to the ancients. The names Cebus, Callithrix,
Spiza, Kitta, Struthus, are examples. This
practice ought by no
means to be encouraged. The usual defence for it is, that it is
impossible now to identify the species to which the name was anciently
applied. But it is certain that if any traveller will take the trouble
to collect the vernacular names used by the modern Greeks and Italians
for the Vertebrata and Mollusca of southern Europe, the meaning of the
ancient names may in most cases be determined with the greatest
precision. It has been well remarked that a Cretan fisher-boy is a far
better commentator on Aristotle's 'History of Animals' than a British
or German scholar. The use however of ancient names, when
correctly
applied, is most desirable, for "in framing scientific terms, the
appropriation of old words is preferable to the formation of new ones*."

l. Adjective generic names.—The names of genera are, in
all cases, essentially substantive, and hence adjective terms cannot be
employed for them without doing violence to grammar. The generic names Hians,
Criniger, Cursorius, Nitidula, &c. are
examples of this
incorrect usage.

m. Hybrid names.—Compound words, whose component parts are
taken from two different languages, are great deformities in
nomenclature, and naturalists should be especially guarded not to
introduce any more such terms into zoology, which furnishes too many
examples of them already. We have them compounded of Greek and Latin,
as Dendrofalco, Gymnocorvus, Monoculus, Arborophila,
flavigaster;
Greek
and French, as Jacamaralcyon, Jacamerops; and Greek
and English, as
Bullockoides, Gilbertsocrinites.

n. Names closely resembling other names already used.—By
Rule 10 it was laid down, that when a name is introduced which is
identical with one previously used, the later one should be
changed.
Some authors have extended the same principle to cases where the later
name, when correctly written, only

approaches in form, without wholly coinciding with the earlier. We
do not, however, think it advisable to make this law imperative, first,
because of the vast extent of our nomenclature, which renders it highly
difficult to find a name which shall not bear more or less resemblance
in sound to some other; and, secondly, because of the impossibility of
fixing a limit to the degree of approximation beyond which such a law
should cease to operate. We content ourselves, therefore, with putting
forth this proposition merely as a recommendation to naturalists, in
selecting generic names, to avoid such as too closely approximate words
already adopted. So with respect to species, the judicious naturalist
will aim at variety of designation, and will not, for example, call a
species virens or virescens in a genus which
already possesses a
viridis.

o. Corrupted words.—In the construction of compound Latin
words, there are certain grammatical rules which have been known and
acted on for two thousand years, and which a naturalist is bound to
acquaint himself with before he tries his skill in coining zoological
terms. One of the chief of these rules is, that in compounding words
all the radical or essential parts of the constituent members must be
retained, and no change made except in the variable terminations. But
several generic names have been lately introduced which run counter to
this rule, and form most unsightly objects to all who are conversant
with the spirit of the Latin language. A name made up of the first half
of one word and the last half of another, is as deformed a monster in
nomenclature as a Mermaid or a Centaur would be in zoology; yet we find
examples in the names Corcorax (from Corvus and Pyrrhocorax),
Cypsnagra (from Cypselus and Tanagra), Merulaxis
(Merula and Synallaxis), Loxigilla (Loxia
and Fringilla), &c. In other cases, where the
commencement of both the simple words is retained in the
compound, a
fault is still committed by cutting off too much of the radical and
vital portions, as is the case in Bucorvus (from Buceros
and
Corvus),
Ninox (Nisus and Noctua), &c.

p. Nonsense names.—Some authors having found difficulty in
selecting generic names which have not been used before, have adopted
the plan of coining words at random without any derivation or meaning
whatever. The following are examples: Viralva, Xema,
Azeca, Assiminia, Quedius, Spisula.
To the same class we may refer
anagrams of other generic names, as Dacelo and Cedola
of Alcedo, Zapornia of Porzana, &c.
Such verbal
trifling
as this is in very bad taste, and is especially calculated to bring the
science into contempt. It finds no precedent in the Augustan age of
Latin, but can be compared only to the puerile quibblings of the middle
ages. It is contrary to the genius of all languages, which appear never
to produce new words by spontaneous generation, but always to derive
them from some other source, however distant or obscure. And it is
peculiarly annoying to the etymologist, who after seeking in vain
through the vast storehouses of human language for the parentage of
such words, discovers at last that he has been pursuing an ignis
fatuus.

q. Names previously cancelled by the operation of §
6.—Some authors consider that when a name has been reduced to a synonym
by the operations of the laws of priority, they are then at liberty to
apply it at pleasure to any new group which may be in want of a name.
We consider, however, that when a word has once been proposed in a
given sense, and has afterwards sunk into a synonym, it is far better
to lay it aside for ever than to run the risk of making confusion by
re-issuing it with a new meaning attached.

r. Specific names raised into generic.—It has sometimes
been the practice in subdividing an old genus to give to the lesser
genera so formed, the names of their respective typical species. Our
Rule 13 authorizes the forming a new specific name in such cases; but
we further wish to state our objections

to the practice altogether. Considering as we do that the original
specific names should as far as possible be held sacred, both on the
grounds of justice to their authors and of practical convenience to
naturalists, we would strongly dissuade from the further
continuance of a practice which is gratuitous in itself, and which
involves the necessity of altering long-established specific names.

We have now pointed out the principal rocks and shoals which lie in
the path of the nomenclator; and it will be seen that the navigation
through them is by no means easy. The task of constructing a language
which shall supply the demands of scientific accuracy on the one hand,
and of literary elegance on the other, is not to be inconsiderately
undertaken by unqualified persons. Our nomenclature presents but too
many flaws and inelegancies already, and as the stern law of priority
forbids their removal, it follows that they must remain as monuments of
the bad taste or bad scholarship of their authors to the latest ages in
which zoology shall be studied.

[Families to end in idæ, and
Subfamilies in inæ.]

The practice suggested in the following proposition has been adopted
by many recent authors, and its simplicity and convenience is so great
that we strongly recommend its universal use.

§ B. It is recommended that the assemblages of genera termed families
should be uniformly named by adding the termination idæ to
the name of the earliest known, or most typically characterized genus
in them; and that their subdivisions, termed subfamilies,
should be similarly constructed, with the termination inæ.

These words are formed by changing the last syllable of the genitive
case into idæ or inæ as Strix, Strigis,
Strigidæ, Buceros,
Bucerotis, Bucerotidæ, not Strixidæ, Buceridæ.

[Specific names to be written with a small initial.]

A convenient memoria technica may be effected by adopting
our next
proposition. It has been usual, when the titles of species are derived
from proper names, to write them with a capital letter, and hence when
the specific name is used alone it is liable to be occasionally
mistaken for the title of a genus. But if the titles of species
were
invariably written with a small initial, and those
of genera with a
capital, the eye would at once distinguish the rank of the
group
referred to, and a possible source of error would be avoided. It should
be further remembered that all species are equal, and should
therefore
be written all alike. We suggest, then, that

§ C. Specific names should always be written with a small
initial
letter, even when derived from persons or places, and generic names
should be always written with a capital.

[The authority for a species, exclusive of the
genus, to be followed by a distinctive expression.]

The systematic names of zoology being still far from that state of
fixity which is the ultimate aim of the science, it is frequently
necessary for correct indication to append to them the name of the
person on whose authority they have been proposed. When the same person
is authority both for the specific and generic name, the case is very
simple; but when the specific name of one author is annexed to the
generic name of another, some difficulty occurs.

For example, the Muscicapa crinita of Linnæus belongs to
the modern genus Tyrannus of Vieillot; but Swainson was the
first to apply the specific name of Linnæus to the generic one of
Vieillot. The question now arises, Whose authority is to be quoted for
the name Tyrannus crinitus? The expression Tyrannus
crinitus, Lin., would imply what is untrue, for Linnæus did not
use the term Tyrannus; and Tyrannuscrinitus,
Vieill., is equally incorrect, for Vieillot did not adopt the name
crinitus. If we call it Tyrannus crinitus, Sw., it
would
imply that Swainson was the first to describe the species, and Linnæus
would be robbed of his due credit. If we term it Tyrannus, Vieill.,
crinitus, Lin., we use a form which, though expressing the
facts correctly, and therefore not without advantage in particular
cases where great exactness is required, is yet too lengthy and
inconvenient to be used with ease and rapidity. Of the three persons
concerned with the construction of a binomial title in the case before
us, we conceive that the author who first describes and names
a
species
which forms the groundwork of later generalizations, possesses a higher
claim to have his name recorded than he who afterwards defines a genus
which is found to embrace that species, or who may be the mere
accidental means of bringing the generic and specific names into
contact. By giving the authority for the specific name in
preference
to
all others, the inquirer is referred directly to the original
description, habitat, &c. of the species, and is at the same time
reminded of the date of its discovery; while genera, being less
numerous than species, may be carried in the memory, or referred to in
systematic works without the necessity of perpetually quoting their
authorities. The most simple mode then for ordinary use seems to be to
append to the original authority for the species, when not applying to
the genus also, some distinctive mark, such as (sp.) implying
an
exclusive reference to the specific name, as Tyrannus
crinitus, Lin. (sp.), and to omit this expression when
the same
authority attaches to both genus and species, as Ostrea edulis,
Lin.* Therefore,

§ D. It is recommended that the authority for a specific name, when
not applying to the generic name also, should be followed by the
distinctive expression (sp.).

[New genera and species to be defined amply and
publicly.]

A large proportion of the complicated mass of synonyms which has now
become the opprobrium of zoology, has originated either from the
slovenly and imperfect manner in which species and groups have been
originally defined, or from their definitions having been inserted in
obscure local publications which have never obtained an extensive
circulation. Therefore, although under § 12, we have conceded that mere
insertion in a printed book is sufficient for publication,
yet we would strongly advise the authors of new groups always to give
in the first instance a full and accurate definition of their
characters, and to insert the same in such periodical or other works as
are likely to obtain an immediate and extensive circulation. To state
this briefly,

§ E. It is recommended that new genera or species be amply
defined, and extensively circulated in the first instance.

[The names to be given to subdivisions of genera to
agree in gender with the original genus.]

In order to preserve specific names as far as possible in an
unaltered form,

* The expression Tyrannus crinitus
(Lin.) would perhaps be preferable from its greater brevity.

whatever may be the changes which the genera to which they are
referred may undergo, it is desirable, when it can be done with
propriety, to make the new subdivisions of genera agree in gender
with
the old groups from which they are formed. This recommendation does not
however authorize the changing the gender or termination of a genus
already established. In brief,

§ F. It is recommended that in su bdividing an old genus in future,
the names given to the subdivisions should agree in gender with that of
the original group.

[Etymologies and types of new genera to be stated.]

It is obvious that the names of genera would in general be far more
carefully constructed, and their definitions would be rendered more
exact, if authors would adopt the following suggestion:—

§ G. It is recommended that in defining new genera the etymology of
the name should be always stated, and that one species should be
invariably selected as a type or standard of reference.

—————

In concluding this outline of a scheme for the rectification of
zoological nomenclature, we have only to remark, that almost the whole
of the propositions contained in it may be applied with equal
correctness to the sister science of botany. We have preferred,
however, in this essay to limit our views to zoology, both for the sake
of rendering the question less complex, and because we conceive that
the botanical nomenclature of the present day stands in much less need
of distinct enactment than the zoological. The admirable rules laid
down by Linnæus, Smith, Decandolle, and other botanists (to which, no
less than to the works of Fabricius, Illiger, Vigors, Swainson, and
other zoologists, we have been much indebted in preparing the present
document), have always exercised a beneficial influence over their
disciples. Hence the language of botany has attained a more perfect
and stable condition than that of zoology; and if this attempt at
reformation may have the effect of advancing zoological nomenclature
beyond its present backward and abnormal state, the wishes of its
promoters will be fully attained.